S THANGAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT; ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & MINES, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 03.02.2016 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to carry on quarrying operation in respect of stone quarry in Survey No.393/1 (Part IIA) extent of 1.41.5 hectares at Malaikotalam Village, Villupuram District for which the petitioner was prevented by the respondent for 8 months from 11.07.2011 to 03.04.2012.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Late Sitha Gounder was a successful bidder in respect of the stone quarry situated in Survey No.393/1 (Part IIA) extent of 1.41.5 hectares at Malaikotalam Village, Villupuram District for a period of five years commencing from 03.01.2011 to 02.01.2016, for which a separate Lease Agreement was executed. During the currency of the Lease, the petitioner's husband died on 11.07.2011, hence, the respondent suspended the operation of the stone quarry. The petitioner, being the legal heir, obtained the Death Certificate on 19.07.2011 and the Legal Heir Certificate on 08.08.2011. On the strength of the said certificates, the petitioner applied for transfer of Lease in her favour on 17.08.2011. The Lease was transferred in the name of the petitioner by the 1st respondent's proceedings dated 25.11.2011. Accordingly, the transport permits were issued upto entire Lease period. Pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner purchased stamp paper for the execution of the Supplementary Lease Deed on 28.11.2011 and submitted the same before the 1st respondent on 29.11.2011. The 1st respondent executed the Supplementary Lease Deed on 26.12.2011 in favour of the petitioner and the same was sent to the Sub Registrar, Kallakurichi for registration by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 03.01.2012. However, the petitioner had got the Supplementary Lease Deed registered only on 21.03.2012. The copy of the proceedings dated 03.01.2012 was also sent to the petitioner, which was also acknowledged by her on 04.01.2012. The petitioner is not in a position to explain the reasons for not registering the document immediately after the receipt of the proceedings dated 03.01.2012. The petitioner took more than two and a half months for getting the document registered, for which the respondents cannot be blamed.

(3.) Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was prevented by the respondents from carrying out the quarrying operation from 11.07.2011 to 03.04.2012, therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to carry out the quarrying operation for the said unworkable period of eight months.